Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

http://www.bluenomore.com/
This bloke is a pilot.

By Cris on 2014 11 20 - 20:08:50
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“Yes, that’s water vapour from the jet fuel combustion, meeting ice-cold and humid outside air, freezing almost instantly and providing condensation surface for the humidity already present. The ice crystals are blown apart by strong winds and voilà: there is your contrail-induced cirrus cover.

Again - this has been observed and researched many times.”

wow. you can describe the weather conditions for 5 days in a row in my area without even knowing where i am. remarjable. another example of how you dont think before you write.

this is why i dont care for your imbecilic unqualified anonymous opinion.
what part of shut the fuck up do you have trouble understanding?

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 20 - 10:50:48
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Gday Mr Clampett,
re wasting electrons..
the way j-anonymous and fenton the pretender ignore logic, reason and common sense is laughable.  I dont post here to try and convince these disingenuous idiots of anything, rather to simply highlight the obvious, so that anyone else who may stumble upon this cess pit of insipid unqualified opinion, hypocrisy, disinformation, censorship and lies, that this poor excuse for an alternative news website has zero credibility, and to proceed with caution.

If not for your expertise at playing “whack-a-troll” everytime j-anonymous pokes his ugly mug above the parapet, I doubt I would bother. Love your work.

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 20 - 10:46:57
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

i think that immigration should be more open in australia, it will make australia stronger. green card

By green card on 2014 11 20 - 08:27:04
From the entry 'The elephant in the room: it's immigration, not asylum seekers!'.

Leonard Clampett,

why are you insisting on calling me ‘Anonymous’? Did you forget my name already?

What is your stance on supersaturation with respect to ice? Does it exists?

Does one tonne of jet fuel generate 1.3 tonnes of water during combustion?

Do you call these fantasies because you refused to accept the facts?

By Josh on 2014 11 20 - 07:25:42
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams wrote:

“what i describle is clear blue skies, turning into overcast skies, only because of what is coming out of planes, that spreads and grows”

Yes, that’s water vapour from the jet fuel combustion, meeting ice-cold and humid outside air, freezing almost instantly and providing condensation surface for the humidity already present. The ice crystals are blown apart by strong winds and voilà: there is your contrail-induced cirrus cover.

Again - this has been observed and researched many times.

By Josh on 2014 11 20 - 07:20:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Andrew Adams,
You are wasting electrons on this site. It exists only so Hereward Fenton (if that is a real name) can air his bias and people like Josh Anonymous, who cannot be educated, can air their fantasies. Cheers

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 11 20 - 07:15:06
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

ANDREW ADAMS: Last warning. If you continue using foul and abusive language I will start deleting your posts and your IP address will be blocked. Your persistent rudeness and bullying has already destroyed your credibility - I wonder if you realise that?

By Hereward Fenton on 2014 11 20 - 02:41:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

“Andrew Adams,

what you describe is not implausible”

youre a freaking dickhead. what i describle is clear blue skies, turning into overcast skies, only because of what is coming out of planes, that spreads and grows.. 

youre not plausible. i know what im looking at and i dont need f’tards like you presuming to be able to tell me otherwise, what part of shut the fuck up do you have trouble understanding?

By Andrew Adams on 2014 11 18 - 15:41:37
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

thats how its always like in politics. the people must know that the politicians are always doing what is good for them, and not what is good for the people, its just the way of nature.

By sam green on 2014 11 18 - 06:02:44
From the entry 'The elephant in the room: it's immigration, not asylum seekers!'.

Categories